"[M]ainstream media is gunning to take [Tulsi Gabbard] out because of her anti-war position so she will face tough and unfriendly questions..."

And she did.

Seemingly out of the blue, establishment tool Chuck Todd did the dirty work.
It happened with roughly 20 minutes left in the two-hour debate. He asked Gabbard about her past history and positions on the LGBTQ community. It turns out her conservative father was a hardcore anti-LGBTQ activist. She worked with him when she was in her teens and early twenties.

So the creep Todd asked about those past positions on LGBTQ. She handled the question smoothly but it is noteworthy that ALL other questions to ALL other candidates were questions about issues and not about their early youth positions, or any other personal questions.

As one Twitter commenter put it:

Weird how NBC "News" didn't have time to ask Dem frontrunner Elizabeth Warren any questions about her phony Native American heritage, but had enough time to ask Tulsi Gabbard (polling at 1%) about controversial past LGBT statements...I wonder why that is? 🤔🧐#Rigged#DemDebate

Although she briefly mentioned healthcare for all and some other lefty positions, Gabbard spent most of her debate time talking about her anti-war position and probably scored the only punches that landed during the entire debate when she went toe to toe against Tim Ryan who was confused about the Taliban and the war in Afghanistan and she skilfully was able to highlight his confusion and her better understanding of the situation.

Some people seemed to notice:

I really liked the way Tulsi handled the attempt to smear her as anti LGBTQ. And the way she destroyed unknown white guy re the Taliban.

Tulsi Gabbard just cleaned Tim Ryan's clock. Good for her. Not that it was all that difficult, Ryan 1) blamed the Taliban for 9/11 and 2) said we must keep troops in Afghanistan to stop them from attacking again. I'm hoping half of these dupes drop out tomorrow morning. pic.twitter.com/JUaBmaDC7R

In the post-debate polls, we will see how many consider an anti-interventionist foreign policy an important issue since Gabbard made her anti-interventionist foreign policy position very clear and it separated her from the pack. If people think the issue is important she will climb in the polls, she is now at 1%.

As for the other debaters on the stage Wednesday night, they all held pretty much the same domestic interventionist positions. No one really stood out, although New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had a strong presence which will likely help him get off the near-zero mark that he is now polling.

But there is no one in the pack that would be mistaken for Thomas Jefferson or even Dan Quayle. They are all serious socialists, with Elizabeth Warren having the most extreme ideas . And as I expected, she expanded her calls for socialist interventions including a call for an industrial policy and "green" research. She also, along with de Blasio, raised her hand when the candidates were asked who was in favor of eliminating private health insurance entirely.

Cory Booker, who was the best orator in the group when presenting his domestic interventionist schemes sounded good even when he made no sense, probably not even to some lefties. For example, at one point he said that "healthcare is not only a human right but also an American right," as though Americans somehow fell under a category different than humans.

And there was this exchange between Gabbard and Booker:

Gabbard:
“I’d give my life for someone in the LGBTQ community”

Booker:
“That’s not enough”

Thomas Sowell made it clear what these lefties are really all about:

No one can really understand the political left without understanding that they are about making themselves feel superior, however much they may talk piously about what they are going to do to help others.

Tomorrow another 10 lefty freaks debate in an attempt to reach the ultimate superiority thrown on earth.

UPDATE:

Tulsi Gabbard is blowing away the pack in the instant post-debate Drudge poll:

This massive lead is unlikely to hold in other polls. This is a very unscientific poll but it will cause voters to take notice of her and it will give her some traction.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the only person on the stage Wednesday polling in double digits, was expected to be the star of the first Democratic debate — and for the first half-hour, she was. But by the end, several lower-polling candidates had taken the spotlight: Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar, and especially Julián Castro...

The experts were split on who else did well. Several other candidates — including Bill de Blasio, Beto O’Rourke, John Delaney and Tulsi Gabbard — had one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric, campaign-launching moment they were hoping for.

UPDATE 6

Powerful analysis by political consultant Dick Morris: Tulsi Gabbard Emerges From The Pack!

From https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25028: Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association, and a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Go to the link and read on. It doesn’t get any better.

Gabbard seems honest and authentic, similar to Ron Paul. But as I have commented here before, “She may be the cleanest shirt in the very dirty laundry of the presidential candidates but the only thing that she is at all good on she is still very week and the rest of her policies are pretty much more central control horribleness.”

I made a drinking game out of it: Drink a shot whenever you hear "working families" or "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer" or "common sense gun control" or "big, profit-seeking corporations" and "we need an economy that works for everyone."I'm nursing a nasty hangover this morning, suffice to say.

Tulsi is solid on interventionism and on cannabis legalization. Unfortunately, she holds incorrect views on most economic issues including "climate change." As I said a few posts back, we should be trying to "turn" Tulsi and forget about that twit, AOC. Tulsi is a grown up who is rock steady under questioning. If anyone knows how to get our economic ideas to her, please inform.

I was a little disappointed with TG's response to the Iran question. When asked if she had a "red line," she said that if our troops were attacked, that would call for a response. I wish she had at least followed up with "But our troops shouldn't be there anyway." She implied it in some of her comments about Trump causing the situation to be dangerous, but I would have liked to have heard an explicit call to bring all the troops back to the homeland. That said, she is certainly better than the others on foreign policy.

The areas were TG is weak, economics in particular, are areas of American politics where culture is in the driving seat. The areas where she is syring are the areas where what the president thinks actually matters. America is falling for the socialist scam. That's happening regardless of who wins in 2020. That's a cultural issue that will have to run its course. American foreign policy is not a product of American culture, it is the product of the attitudes of the specific people in charge. I'd rather have no wars and Medicare for all than more wars and more of our already not even close to free market healthcare.

Hate to say it but TG is awful. After reading about her on this blog I thought she was like a lefty Ron Paul or something. Maybe a Trump-Tulsi ticket in 2020. Couldn't be more wrong. She's horrible on everything except war. And even her anti-war stance is suspect. If she's so anti-war, what was she doing serving in Afghanistan?

I thought John Delaney had a solid night. He seemed to be the sanest of the bunch.

But it's plain to see that none of these lightweights could even come close to touching Trump in the election.

It’s pretty liberating to not vote for anyone to rule over you. And especially in presidential elections, you can’t say your vote counts. I mean, I hear that a lot, that it does count, from the very same people that tell me the elections are rigged by the elite. Just decide to not participate. Don’t encourage the bastards.

Leaving aside the philosophical points, there are two practical reasons not to vote.

First, your vote has only a very tiny chance of getting you what you want. I'm not sure that any (important) election at any level has ever been decided by one vote. Moreover, your preferred candidate winning doesn't guarantee you your preferred outcome, because that also requires that (a) your candidate keeps his promises, and (b) his actions are not stymied by the other organs of the state. When you multiply out those three probabilities, the chances of your effort to vote being worth it are infinitesimal.

Second, as Doug Casey often notes, not voting means one less direct interaction with the heinous individuals connected with the state (election officials).